User talk:Steven Taylor

Request for Deletion Comments

As much as I may disagree with some of the what the person may have to say, he is notable and I cannot stand with you on this. Wikipedia is for NPOV articles, not a soapbox for a viewpoint no matter how worthy.Coffeeboy 15:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, as much as I agree with you about the person, he is notable, his book was 2nd on the NYTimes Nonfiction list. This site is an encyclopedic resource. Would you want someone to delete the article on Jesus because they thought it was hogwash? BTW you are not THE Steve Taylor are you? Coffeeboy 15:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?

Wow. Are you serious? With respect to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Levitt (2nd nomination), please try to assume good faith. Closing this was entirely proper. Also, since you're so incredibly new here, it'd probably be best for you to take a conservative approach. If you see something that seems strange or out of line to you, try to understand it before letting the accusations fly. The contents of the messages you've been leaving make it clear to me that you don't yet understand what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Friday (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert the closing of the Afd. There is no abuse of process here. Friday (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not spam talk pages like that again. android 79 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship?

Censorship? You're being ridiculous. Trying to delete a well known bestselling author, and claiming censorship at the same time. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. If this continues, I wouldn't be surprised if someone decided to block you from editing. Friday (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption. android 79 16:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Levitt AfD

No, in fact, I don't think I'm Jesus Christ himself, surprisingly enough. The consensus was obvious speedy keep as a bad faith nomination. I may or may not idsagree with his opinions but that doesn't affect my wanting the article to be on Wikipedia. I don't like child pornography either but I think that there should be an article on Wikipedia. My personal beliefs do not affect my role as Administrator on Wikipedia. Regard, --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon Tactics

In the future, it would be a good idea not to try and farm votes from Wikipedians. Visiting a bunch of talk pages and leaving unsigned pleas for support will not win an AfD. It's a good way to promote a block on your account. --Avery W. Krouse 16:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godless crackpots

Re your assertion that Wikipedia shouldn't have entries for all "godless crackpots"... but I guess it ought to have entries for all of the godful ones? *Dan T.* 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this. Now.

You (Jason Gastrich, I presume) keep sending emails out to everyone who has the "I am a Christian" infobox, but your radical views are not shared by most people in this community; in fact your persistency is getting quite annoying. You make up articles about people who are completely non-notable, for example your friends at Bible college, and then you talk about streamlining in order to remove articles about people who have conflicting views with yourself.

Religion is about family. It's not about suppressing free speech, its about allowing it, and getting into informative discussions with people. By all means, add a "Controversy" section to Steven Levitt's page, talking about how some people disagree with his views, but don't try to stop others from reading it.

The presence of a Christian community within Wikipedia is a very positive and good thing. But the way to save people isn't to tell them what they can and can't read. Kidburla2002 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. Arch O. La 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]